Posted
by
samzenpus
on Monday January 27, 2014 @11:50AM
from the naughty-or-nice dept.

Nerval's Lobster writes "U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder made government whistleblower Edward Snowden a very peculiar offer last week: plead guilty, and the U.S. government would consider how to handle his criminal case. That seems an inverted way of doing things—in the United States, the discussions (if not the trial) usually come before the guilty plea—but Holder's statement hints yet again at the conundrum facing the government when it comes to Snowden, a former subcontractor for the National Security Agency (NSA) who leaked secrets about that group's intelligence operations to a number of newspapers, most notably The Guardian. It's unlikely that the U.S. government would ever consider giving full clemency to Snowden, but now it seems that various officials are willing to offer something other than locking him in a deep, dark cell and throwing away the key. If Snowden ever risked coming back to the United States (or if he was forced to return, thanks to the Russians kicking him out and no other country willing to give him asylum), and you were Holder and Obama, what sort of deal would you try to strike with everybody's favorite secrets-leaker?"

Snowden has repeatedly stated that he gave everything he has to the journalists and he no longer has the material.The journalists (Greenwald, Guardian, etc.) are in control of the material and they decide what to release and when.So... I don't think he has any leverage to release or not release any information.

I think you are confused on this point. He has made it clear numerous times that he does not have control of any of the documents. He has also explicitly stated that he is not holding back anything for "insurance" since that would be an invitation to others to kill him to reveal these documents.Hard to prove one way or another here so you just have to take his word on this (or not).

Ok. Then what about prosecuting people who committed crimes of violating the constitution. All our other laws are derived from the authority of the constitution. If you do something unconstitutional, then it should not be crime to have someone else blow the whistle on you.

That's very hard to prove. Person A says they were following orders from person B, while person B claims that A went rogue and had no orders. Meanwhile all the documents that might prove it one way or another are classified.

Bush pardoned himself before any charges could be brought up against him. Why stops Obama from pardoning Snowden?

We all know that Snowden [i]should[/i] be protected by the whisleblower protection act, but the government is weaseling its way around the law, as per usual. Funny, since he was working for the government, he is liable for espionage charges, but suddenly when it comes to whistleblower protection, he's "only a contractor, not an actual employee, so it doesn't apply to him." Talk about having your

For whistleblower laws to do any good at all they really need to be enforced with with prohibitive and spectacular zeal, ie, anyone attempting to act against a whistleblower needs to get landed in jail so fast their head spins.

Of course, we all know it doesn't work like that. Perhaps the whistleblower won't get prosecuted but they are likely to lose their job or at the very least they'll find their social situation at work impossible to deal with. Few actions against the whistleblower will ever be punished.

Realistically it's go to the press and hope the attention makes retaliation difficult, or shut up and do something else if you don't want to be complicit in whatever illegal acts happening that should be leaked. Snowden's assessment was without a doubt correct and he chose the only possible ethical course of action.

I'm glad we know what he told us. But you can't not prosecute people who undoubtedly did commit crimes because you agree with their stated motives.

Sure you can, if you gloss over the legal issue of whether you can even know whether someone "undoubtedly did" commit a crime until as a minimum you have followed due process and tried their case before a competent court.

For one thing, the US government is demonstrably willing and able to grant retrospective immunity to parties who have probably broken the law if it wishes to do so. There are well-documented examples related to the same kind of surveillance issues Snowden raised, they were just applied to parties on the other side of the debate.

For another thing, if you're talking about issues on a scale of how government works, alleged abuse of power, and failure to apply your nation's constitutional provisions, appealing to "they broke the law" makes only a limited amount of sense. When only one side has any say in making the law or how that law is enforced in practice, it's hardly going to lead to a rational, reasoned debate and ultimately to constructive change. One man's terrorist/freedom fighter is another man's freedom fighter/terrorist, history is written by the victors, and all that.

Quick question what about the General who lied through his teeth when questioned by Congress and the Senate? Remember he LIED... Snowden did not lie, he just uncovered what was the truth.

Many think that Snowden is the culprit here, but frankly he is not because if it was not Snowden it would have been somebody else. The problem is the NSA was too zealous in its gathering techniques. It was only a matter of time before somebody would have said something.

Congress has a pretty poor, or at least erratic, track record of actually enforcing the 'under oath' part of testifying in front of congress. Unless you are really small or really unpopular, even getting caught in outright lies is unlikely to have any consequences.

I'll bite:What snowden did was a form of civil disobedience. What about the civil rights activists who committed "crimes" aka peaceful protests and other non violent forms of civil disobedience in order to repeal or change said laws? I think the majority agreed with their stated motives.

What snowden did was a form of civil disobedience. What about the civil rights activists who committed "crimes" aka peaceful protests and other non violent forms of civil disobedience in order to repeal or change said laws?

Umm, most of them went to jail. That was usually an explicit part of the protest. Take some time and read Martin Luther King's Letter from Birmingham Jail sometime, for example. He explicitly discusses how a major point of protest an unjust law is to practice civil disobedience, but then be prepared to accept the consequences. The point of non-violent civil disobedience in many cases was to change the laws by showing how their enforcement resulted in injustice -- not to avoid prosecution.

And take a look at Ghandi -- in many cases, the idea was to protest in a non-violent manner by continuing to do something that you should be able to do, but let the British soldiers beat you -- accept your punishment, so that the British citizens themselves might become outraged at what their "law enforcement" was doing, and thus the laws might be changed.

Like many people today, I don't think you understand what non-violent action really was about, nor the cost you were expected to bear. Since the time of Ghandi and MLK, many governments have realized that beating the crap out of people who won't fight back (or who just accept being taken to prison) just ends up offending other people and ultimately overturning the laws. Law enforcement nowadays practices intimidation, but it avoids riling up the population too much with overt oppressive actions. Thus, fewer protestors are spurred to do the kinds of things that would result in arrest (or even beatings, etc.)... and thus the public is less outraged.

I'm not saying that this applies at all to Snowden. His actions were less about breaking unjust laws (after all, most people can probably agree that there are in fact intelligence secrets that should not be broadcast on the news, and it probably would be a bad thing if random people in intelligence just started exposing this information for no reason at all -- so those laws have some purpose). It was more about exposing the unjust practices of others within the government and things that had been inappropriately kept from the public.

In essence, the Snowden case is nothing like classic "civil disobedience" and peaceful protests. I'm not arguing that he should go to prison -- but if he were practicing actual classic civil disobedience, he should probably have been prepared to. Forcing the government to put you in jail or even beat the crap out of you was often a deliberate part of classic "civil disobedience" and "peaceful protest."

The video showed an American helicopter firing on a group of men in Baghdad, one of them a journalist, and two other Reuters employees carrying cameras that the pilots mistook for anti-tank grenade launchers (RPG-7). The helicopter also fired on a van that had stopped to help the injured members of the first group; two children in the van were wounded and their father was killed.

--Wikipedia

I'm of the opinion that the actions depicted in this video are generally considered to be real injustices, and are indisputably opposed by society.

But let's not forget my allegation of barbarism, which you contest. Manning has consistently protested the conditions she is being held in, categorizing them as pre-trial punishment. For roughly one year, Manning was subject to either suicide watch or prevention of injury status. Juan E. Mendez, a United Nations Special Rapporteur on torture, published a report saying the detention conditions had been "cruel, inhuman and degrading." In early April 2011, 295 academics (most of them American legal scholars) signed a letter arguing that the treatment was a violation of the United States Constitution.

So that's the basis for my claim of barbarism. Do you have anything to back your claim that Manning's imprisonment is "hardly barbaric", beyond the fact that most of these issues were eventually resolved?

Consider civil disobedience.Thoreau, Gandhi, ML King, etc. all broke the law.However, most people think what they did was "right" and that they should not be punished.Snowden did us all a great favor by proving what many has suspected... the government is routinely violating the first and fourth amendments to our constitution (among other serious crimes).This essay on Civil Disobedience by Thoreau may provide some enlightenment:http://thoreau.eserver.org/civ... [eserver.org]

Thoreau speaks to this point:"[8] All men recognize the right of revolution; that is, the right to refuse allegiance to, and to resist, the government, when its tyranny or its inefficiency are great and unendurable. But almost all say that such is not the case now. But such was the case, they think, in the Revolution of '75.(10) If one were to tell me that this was a bad government because it taxed certain foreign commodities brought to its ports, it is most probable that I should not make an ado about it, for I can do without them. All machines have their friction; and possibly this does enough good to counterbalance the evil. At any rate, it is a great evil to make a stir about it. But when the friction comes to have its machine, and oppression and robbery are organized, I say, let us not have such a machine any longer. In other words, when a sixth of the population of a nation which has undertaken to be the refuge of liberty are slaves, and a whole country is unjustly overrun and conquered by a foreign army, and subjected to military law, I think that it is not too soon for honest men to rebel and revolutionize. What makes this duty the more urgent is the fact that the country so overrun is not our own, but ours is the invading army.(11)

[9] Paley, a common authority with many on moral questions, in his chapter on the "Duty of Submission to Civil Government," resolves all civil obligation into expediency; and he proceeds to say that "so long as the interest of the whole society requires it, that is, so long as the established government cannot be resisted or changed without public inconveniency, it is the will of God that the established government be obeyed, and no longer" — "This principle being admitted, the justice of every particular case of resistance is reduced to a computation of the quantity of the danger and grievance on the one side, and of the probability and expense of redressing it on the other."(12) Of this, he says, every man shall judge for himself. But Paley appears never to have contemplated those cases to which the rule of expediency does not apply, in which a people, as well as an individual, must do justice, cost what it may. If I have unjustly wrested a plank from a drowning man, I must restore it to him though I drown myself.This, according to Paley, would be inconvenient. But he that would save his life, in such a case, shall lose it.(13) This people must cease to hold slaves, and to make war on Mexico, though it cost them their existence as a people. "

Sorry but you are wrong. At least in the sense that because a person is guilty he must be sentenced to the prescribed penalty. People rarely say it, but a large part of trying someone before a jury of their peers is that they can be found innocent even though the actually perpetrated the crime. The south used to find this a nifty way to get away with lynching. But, it also happens all the time for good reasons. It may get you ire up to hear it but it is true. If Snowden were tried and I was on the jury I would vote for acquittal.

This is a great and timely post. Jury nullification is the ultimate, unreviewable, unbreakable last defense of the citizens to protect their own against the power of the state. Judges go so far out of bounds trying to lock jurors down into only considering what the judge, through years of caselaw and tradition, determines to be relevant. In almost all cases they do so without the support of black letter law. Splitting the trial into two pieces, guilt and punishment, also deprives jurors of the ability to rationally decide the outcome of cases.

If I was called and selected for jury duty, unless there was some big new shoe to drop that I can't yet imagine, Snowden would be a not-guilty on all counts, and I would fight like hell to convince the others. If I couldn't turn the tide towards acquittal it would be a hung jury for sure.

It is the duty of all Americans to use jury nullification when the power of the state is corrupted against it's citizens. I would go so far as to say that juries should consider throwing an occasional not-guilty out just to punish and humble prosecutors from time to time.

Snowden committed crimes. For the rule of law, he should be tried and sentenced to the prescribed penalty for those crimes.

Yep totally... prosecute Snowden...after...

Clapper is prosecuted for lying to congress.

Top people in the previous administration are punished (If I were prosecutor I would push for death penalty) for lying to the world about reasons for starting an elective war with Iraq that costs the lives of hundreds of thousands and counting.

And every lawyer and TLA official who knowingly subverts the constitution every time they pull a new stellar wind out of their assholes. Collecting is not collecting unless we look

The government is breaking the law, and continues to act illegally.A civilian breaks the law (oh how convenient) to expose the illegal activities.Why is the civilian prosecuted and the original offender let off scott free??Why again are we also not trying and sentencing the government officials who broke the law in the first place??

Do I get a free pass for my crime because I exposed a more despicable crime? Does my neighbor get charged despite the evidence being obtained illegally?

1. Yes, you would almost certainly get a free pass. For one, because presumably you are an otherwise law abiding person. And guess what, even in the US today, a law abiding person who goes rogue and breaks a law that involves only property damage or a breach of peace is almost always given a slap on the wrist or a no-prosecution.

2. Second, yes, your neighbor gets charged. That evidence was not illegally obtained by the police. They had probable cause (namely, you saw it) to believe it existed, so they obtained a warrant and executed a search.

A better example is:

"My neighbor asked me to come over and help fix his PC. Before he let me in the door he made my promise I wouldn't tell anyone what I saw. When I came in and saw his PC, it will filled with child porn. I called the police but they told me that I can't report it is a crime because it's a secret. So I took out a newspaper ad letting people know that my neighbor is a bad guy and is breaking the law. Since he's really big and has a lot of guns, I was afraid to go home, so I had to move half-way around the world to protect myself from being shot in the middle of the night."

See, I have mixed feelings about this. For the revelation about the domestic spying I would classify him as a whistleblower and say full pardon, but then he went and divulged a bunch of information on foreign spying programs which makes me feel like he should be classed as a criminal.

Spying on allies is a thin excuse for outrage on the part of the average US citizen. Everyone does this, we know it, but you're not supposed to get caught. However by divulging this external spying (which I fully expect the NSA to do) I feel he's actually crossed the line from whistleblower to criminal.

Like I said, mixed feelings. In the end, I don't think a full pardon is warranted, but I think most of the major charges, especially all charges related to revealing the wiretapping scheme, should be dismissed.

Also, a pardon is not really applicable here, as he has not been convicted of any crimes. He is technically still innocent under the eyes of the law, though I'm sure the government doesn't care.

I am a little fuzzy here, are you calling Snowden a traitor, for pointing out the vast, incredibly illegal spying program that has massively damaged US diplomatic and economic interests, or the NSA? Please clarify who needs to be shot....

Pardoning Snowden for all past crimes and enabling his return would prevent the release of any further damaging documents. If Snowden remains within US jurisdiction, any new leaks of his material can lead prosecutors directly to him.

Once the bleeding has stopped, the NSA and the Justice Department should together explain to the voting population the legal concept of "the fruit of the poison tree" [wikipedia.org] - any intelligence gained by espionage should be inadmissible in court outside of direct, existential threats.

All governments engage in espionage to some extent, and our goal should not be to remove our "poison garden" and blind ourselves, but to ensure that state secrets are not used as a weapon against the populace.

Pardoning Snowden for all past crimes and enabling his return would prevent the release of any further damaging documents. If Snowden remains within US jurisdiction, any new leaks of his material can lead prosecutors directly to him.

huh? My understanding was that Snowden pilfered a very large dataset, then handed it over to a select group of journalists. I suppose Snowden may have investigated the dataset enough himself to know some things he could divulge that the journalists wouldn't for ethical reasons. In that case, maybe there is a tiny bit to what you said. But in the general case, I think and hope it is safe to assume now that if there is anything in the dataset that one of the journalists has access to that the journalist believes should be released to the public for ethical reasons- well, I think and hope that whatever happens to Snowden is as irrelevant to that journalists decision as possible.

Once the bleeding has stopped, the NSA and the Justice Department should together explain to the voting population the legal concept of "the fruit of the poison tree" [wikipedia.org] - any intelligence gained by espionage should be inadmissible in court outside of direct, existential threats.

I guess maybe I've lived a pretty long life and now you are making me unsure of the law. I would have thought the espionage itself was illegal. Something about the government having to pay you for your pig if they take it or some such.

All governments engage in espionage to some extent, and our goal should not be to remove our "poison garden" and blind ourselves, but to ensure that state secrets are not used as a weapon against the populace.

The problem is *that does not happen*. I think our goal should not be either to create, or eradicate such "poison gardens". But rather to understand that they exist, can be created, and can be used for ethical or unethical purposes. The real dark side to all of this is how much unethical behavior goes on to cover up lesser instances of unethical behavior relating to these poison gardens. And such amplification of unethical behavior can lead to very bad places. I'll admit, that for much of my paranoia, the place I live isn't as bad as I feared it could become 10 years ago. But it's pretty bad. I'd rather be reading more slashdot articles about humanity cleverly engineering solutions to its problems, than cleverly creating what this human being considers to be very big problems. I hope I've been alarmist. I hope 20 years from now we look back and say- oh those animal-house/night-shift whackos at the NSA and GITMO and AbuGhraib, what *exceptions to the rule they were*. I really, really, really pray and hope for that. Because I also really really really fear that the dark impulses of humanity that led to widespread slavery, and hitler and all that.... well, I'm a lot less comfortable with our distance in years from those things than most of society seems to be.

Then the COURTS will look at EVIDENCE and decide if he qualifies for Whistleblower status.

Snowden and others have already talked about this at length.The law does not allow for him (a contractor) to be a whistleblower.If Snowden goes before a court, he'll be prosecuted under the Espionage Act,most of the evidence against him will be classified, and he'll be convicted in a fairly open and shut case.

And the COURTS will tell the Executive to pound sand.

That's a wonderful scenario, but extremely unlikely.The courts will follow the law, which leaves no room for Snowden to be found innocent.

Snowden was charged with theft, "unauthorized communication of national defense information" and "willful communication of classified communications intelligence information to an unauthorized person," according to the complaint. The last two charges were brought under the 1917 Espionage Act.

I support this. In addition he should get the next Peace price, as his doing weakened the US and made it less able to force things at the present. Maybe it will help that the US administration learns to talk and negotiate on equal terms which will make the world a safer place. Also there are other states, like the UK, Russia or China, who need to be humbled as well.

There, see how useless and idiotic that is? People can see that this sort of thing is happening, so you don't need to reiterate it. Something being common or accepted does not make it right. People are saying that this is wrong and shouldn't happen. I for one thank Snowden for releasing the information you seem to consider useless, so hopefully we can eventually stop the NSA from spying on allies and innocent people worldwide.

NEWFLASH: The NSA's actual job extends beyond a sound bite. There's more to it than just 'spy on the rest of the world.'

As for being 'a fact of life', i would contend that this is only true because certain groups in most countries make the claim that it is. If the NSA were suddenly vaporized along with anyone who would work for the US government and has basic knowledge of spycraft, the general US pubilc would probably not be subject to substantial negative effects. Some executives who benefit from the industrial espionage that they engage in might be hurt, but these parties are pretty good at not paying taxes or creating jobs.

I'd like to raise the question, however, of whether what people deserve should play into decisions of justice. Our concern shouldn't be for exacting Karma, but preventing harm, through a combination of deterrence and treatment, to the greatest measurable effect.

To that end, a pardon is still called for, just not because he deserves it, just to prevent chilling effect on whistle-blowers.

He didn't just state the obvious like many people before him did - he had the balls to gather evidence that the most powerful nation on the planet was spying on its own citizens, spying on allies, spying on international corporations, and outright abusing its power in dozens of previously unknown manners. The evidence is what separated him from every other person that attempted to blow the whistle on these activities before and the process of methodically gathering that evidence over a long period of time took balls of titanium. If he was smart, he would never attempt to step foot in the U.S. again because he made a ton of powerful people look really bad and I'm sure they can't wait to greet him.

I'm no fan of Nancy Pelosi but I believe she was referring to the fact that the House and Senate much each pass their versions of a bill before reconciliation and a final vote. If one body of congress has passed a bill and the other has not, it is true that you won't know what may be in the final bill. She's a life long politician and should've known better than to say something like that. I'm sure to her, the difference between bills and laws is evident but she should've known the general population wouldn't construe it that way.

The kind of idiot who makes deals with Eric Holder. That guy is so shady and such an inept lawyer; this offer does not surprise me in the slightest. Even a freshly minted law school graduate would tell Snowden not to take this deal. Expect nothing to come of this except more embarrassment and proof of Holder's incompetence.

Oh no, no, they would completely live up to the promise of not prosecuting him for leaking the docs. However, his taxes would get audited every year, he'd be on the no-fly list, a UAV would circle his house 24/7. They'd get him on something, mark my words, because Snowden committed the one unforgivable crime in the US: he embarassed politicians.

Goes to show the lawyer mentality. All that matters is that Edward gets a guilty plea. He gets that and it shows that he was right. Another mark in the victory column. The reality is only a complete idiot would even consider the offer made for more than a moment. It's basically the equivalent of being held at gun point and telling the gunman, "If you give me your gun now, I'll consider not shooting you."

Seriously, Snowden's a hell of a guy and did a real good thing - they even recognize this by their claims for the need to limit the actions of the NSA. But the administration cannot condone his actions. Hence, a last minute presidential pardon is the only politically viable option.

The alternative could be assassination, and I don't mean by the USA. There are many groups active in Russia who would kill Snowden simply to make the USA look bad (if he dies, regardless of the circumstances, most people will assume he was killed by the US). Returning to the US would alleviate living under that kind of fear (assuming he recognizes it).

a plea deal is not different than jailing him indefinitely. Basically it's stating please treat me the same way as Bradly Manning, keep on doing all the evil/illegal things you are currently doing and please do not jail any of the real traitors.Whistle blowers are not committing crimes. They are just the messengers.

let me get to the point.Crimes and illegal actions should never be hidden under the guise of national security and security clearance. They should be brought to light by whatever means necessary and the people who are committing those transgressions should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.Anything other than that is a fraud.

(a) It's time to highlight the oft-neglected Presidential power of pardon and what it's meant to be used for. (b) The Obama White House contact webpage still claims that "President Obama is committed to creating the most open and accessible administration in American history." It's time put up or shut up on that BS.

This guy cost the government untold fortunes -- not only in dollars but in goodwill. He poisoned relationships with the international community, undermined the confidence of the citizenry in our institutions and ignored the democratic process. He should be in jail, no question.

I wonder if Mr. Snowden, with an appropriate team of advisors, would have the skill required to lead the United States onto a moral path? I'm unaware of his management/administration qualifications, but he certainly has the high ground. The bug would certainly be in the "appropriate team of advisors" departments, and I'm afraid he'd end up like JFK.--CF

Whether or not you like their methods these people are effectively doing the same thing. Uncovering and making known actions of the US (and other gov'ts) that are in direct conflict with humanity and the exisiting legal framework.

Snowden uncovered crimes being committed on a daily basis against the citizens of the United States, and knowing that his own chain of command was just as guilty and would silence him (probably permanently) he took it upon himself to make these crimes known to the world, and did so at the ultimate personal risk: His life. Don't sit there and tell me that at some point, they considered sending someone after him to kill him. Regardless he's now an exile. If you ask me, he deserves a medal for what he did, but I'd be just as happy if they left the man alone.

It's always the same: "What does Edward Snowden deserve?". How about "what should we do about NSA's over reach?". Lost in this discussion seems to be any kind of seriousness about reigning in NSA. At least in the 70s when the CIA was caught engineering coups they had to have congressional oversight placed upon them.

He deserves his right to speak freely without fear of government retribution.

He deserves his right to a fair and speedy trial, by a jury of his peers.

He deserves his right to face his accusers, the accusations they make, and the evidence being presented against him.

He deserves his right (and duty) to out traitors to the American People, so they may be tried for their crimes as well.

Unfortunately, the government authorized by the Constitution doesn't seem to agree with anything the aforementioned document says, so neither Snowden, nor the traitors, nor any of the rest of us will be getting what he/they/we deserve.

He did the right things, but in the wrong way. No matter his intentions or the results, both of which are good, it doesn't change the fact that he broke the law.
My opinion on this would be to acknowledge that he broke several laws, including espionage and other serious offenses, but keep his punishment light (as in non-existent) an call it "time served" for whatever incarceration/detention is needed to get his case in front of a judge that agrees to rule like this. We need to be careful not to praise the acts only because the results were good. Certainly the current whistle-blower laws need heavy reform; they can take that into consideration when handing down sentencing.

Would you care to define what the "right way" for him to handle it would have been? He went to the Inspectors General, which if they were doing their jobs would be the correct procedure, and was ignored.

pleading guilty might make a case for extradition stronger and the case for extended clemency weaker? a convicted felon versus a suspected felon might have different standing in regards to who would accept him.... IANAL but it sounds like the game of checkers has just been moved to chess.

"If... you were Holder and Obama, what sort of deal would you try to strike with everybody's favorite secrets-leaker?"

I'd offer him pardon on almost everything, leaving only a trivial (1-2 months) jail sentence left over. Then I'd have him murdered while he was in prison.

The intelligence community is happy because I've sent a clear message of what happens to whistleblowers, and I can continue to play innocent and act pro-whistleblower as I have for ages, letting accusations of it being an assassination fade into conspiracy theory while most of my voting base continues to ignore the problem or is glad I got rid of another "terrorist lover". Seriously, what are the pro-privacy advocates going to do? Vote against me on this issue by voting for a Republican who wants to peek into their bedrooms to make sure there's no sinning going on? Ha!

What? It's not what I personally want to see done, but then I'm not hypocritical, power-hungry, interest-beholden, and immoral enough to ever want to be President. If I were President, obviously that would not be the case.

Snowden has proved over and over that he is going to take the moral high ground no matter what. Give him the US Presidency and allow the corruption to be completely exposed and made vulnerable. This country is being run by criminals - and 'business as usual' is looking more and more like fascism every day.

Pardon Snowden.. give him a medal.. and then get behind him and ask him to run for President.

ok, if the US government had _any_ credibility that they weren't just going to off this guy the second they could...and there was ANY credibility in the courts..

heres what SHOULD happen

He should get charged with whatever crimes he is alleged to have committed.

In the course of his trial, he should name all of the official channels he tried to use to "whistleblow" the "right" way. His superior? His superioer-superior?

Each person he names should charges brought against them, and subsequently be put on trial.

Snowden should have a full trial, and the people he implicates in that trial should all be followed up on for prosecution.

The methods he used to do what he did should be revealed in court and handed back to appropriate govt agencies, who should improve their internal security.

The people and practices that prevented him from whistleblowing in the "right" way should be removed from service.

Ultimately, snowden will probably be convicted of something or other via this trial. And then immediately after the conviction, he should be pardoned by the president, owing to the fact that the greater good he did for the American people by exposing the systematic law breaking by its own government greatly exceeds any legal wrong he might have done.

He should have his voting/firearm rights restored in the event that the charges against him were felony charges; the net result is that not felony should appear on his record.

But, when you run off to our biggest political rivals and tell the world the details of how we spy, you're violating the whistleblower's code of ethics to minimize injury.

He did minimize the cost of injury, and he took on a great personal risk. And you're vilifying him for not taking on even more risk. Only the biggest, most powerful rivals would have been able to not stick him on a plane straight to gitmo or worse. What would you rather he did? Stick around to get tortured? What on earth would that have served?

And, for what purpose did it serve? It did nothing to help the American people.

That's hardly his fault now is it. You're basically blaming him for the current administration being so corrupted that even the whistleblowing didn't make a dent.

If we're to have an open and democratic system, the American people must be told when their laws are being violated by their supposed servants. In an open system, you cannot tell the people without telling the world.

And, for what purpose did it serve? It did nothing to help the American people.

Nothing?

[...] he revealed some shady intelligence gathering programs the US was running against its own people [...]

No, you wouldn't have, because then you would have moved the goalposts to him not going through the proper channels, which clearly do not work. No matter what he did, you would find some mistake for which to condemn him. He acting against the power structure, so he was wrong. That's the real philosophy people like you state.